4
$\begingroup$

In the not so distant future a man builds a remote doom fortress to design, create, and raise GM/GMO children. His plan is to nurture geniuses who can enact his dastardly plan to wipe out humanity, and for his children to repopulate the earth.

The man precisely designs his (let's say ten) children, and raises them in isolation, doing everything he can to make them as smart and capable as possible home schooled until he sends them out to the real world to get some higher education and life experience and networking to achieve his goals.

EDIT: Please note that the use of "children" is not a specific age reference to pre-pubescence (I rather unobservantly didn't see that this could be severely misconstrue), simply that they are the man's "children" or offspring since he created them.
How can his complete control over their nature and nurture be used to achieve the following:

  1. The children must be created and raised to have a deeply genuine love and empathy for each other - which importantly cannot be easily translated into empathy for outsiders.
  2. The children must be created and raised to find each other sexually attractive and for this to overcome the natural tendency for "siblings" (psychologically; those raised together) to be repulsed by each other.
    IMPORTANT EDIT: this means relations between the individuals as teenagers or young adults, as is normal. "Children" is not used here to mean age specific reference!!
  3. The children must be created and raised to ensure they are loyal to each other, regardless of whether the aforementioned techniques work.
  4. Techniques should ideally be subtle and work in ways the children cannot anticipate, and must not be overtly forced or negative. They must not infringe upon the children's intelligence. The aim is to have these techniques make the children return to each other, and home, and their objective.

I would appreciate answers based in psychology and biological sciences (genetics, neurology, etc) to understand the processes which are a problem to achieving the goals, and so how they could be overcome.

In this case GM/GMO (Genetically Modified/Genetically Modified Organism, or "designer baby") is someone whose genome has been planned with great precision, and then has been created as a "test tube" baby in some sort of artificial womb. They do not have a biological or even surrogate mother, and they might even be a synthetic organism (a la craig venter).

$\endgroup$
20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question kind of reminds me of the movie Never Let Me Go. $\endgroup$ – The Anathema May 23 '16 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hmm, question asking to justify child incest. Nope. I suggest you remove that part and stick with "loyal to their family". $\endgroup$ – Schwern May 23 '16 at 21:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ dastardly plan to wipe out humanity of which he is a part of. I can see this plan hilariously backfire when his children come to eliminate the first/last human on the list. $\endgroup$ – AmiralPatate May 24 '16 at 14:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let's say I asked you what ingredients might make the best sandwich. One person will say BLT, another person hates tomatoes, but loves mayo, etc. Which answer is best? Is that an objective way of determining this? Similarly, you're asking us what the best way to brainwash these clones is. There's no textbook answer, and you're not providing any parameters such as, for example "anything sex related is off the table". So one person might answer that they need to have chips implanted in their brains, another that it's all down to manipulation of another kind. Who's right? Who's wrong? Opinions. $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM May 25 '16 at 17:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As to how to phrase it, I think a better way to look at it is that you need to better frame the question. Provide some parameters which seem likely, or desirable to you. Tell us what you expect from a good answer, so that people don't waste their time going off on a tangent which you disregard out of hand. That's what the purpose of that close reason (opinion based) is. Now, as you can see, people will still answer opinion based questions, because some of them are a pretty challenging, or fun, but they are still out of scope. So maybe apply these lessons for your next question :-) $\endgroup$ – AndreiROM May 25 '16 at 17:42
5
$\begingroup$

Engineer them to excrete pheromones that have no effect on humans but attract the opposite sex from among their genetic siblings. Then increase their sense of smell so that they find the natural odor of unmodified humans repulsive.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

He actually wont need to do much. From Wikipedia:

People tend to select mates that are like themselves, which is known as assortative mating. This holds both for physical appearances and mental traits. People commonly rank faces similar to their own as more attractive, trustworthy, etc. than average.
...
GSA is rare between people raised together in early childhood due to a reverse sexual imprinting known as the Westermarck effect, which desensitizes them to later close sexual attraction. It is hypothesized that this effect evolved to prevent inbreeding

The mere separation of his children may be sufficient for his "dastardly plan" to work out. Of course, he'll still have to deal with the fact that it's generally accepted that one needs a population of about 5,000 to avoid inbreeding issues, but hey. 10 is a start =)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't the GMO, with adding enough mutation resistance, solve the inbreeding = mutation damage stacking, issues? ... Although, it doesn't remove issues of a small genepool. $\endgroup$ – Malady May 28 '16 at 4:22
  • $\begingroup$ It could if the "father" is a perfect being who makes no mistakes. The "perfect genome" has not yet been sequenced by mother nature. She's always tinkering with it. The human genome, like that of most species, was never designed to deal with such a severe bottleneck in genetic material. Although, if these "children" are sufficiently altered as to no longer qualify as human, all bets are off, so maybe it could work! $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon May 28 '16 at 6:03
0
$\begingroup$

It seems that he should just raise them naturally just mines the Incest taboo. If they never discover that sibling sexual interaction is unusual or wrong then they probably won't develop the taboo on there own, if he keeps them in a enclosed society with out access to the outside world they will have no other people to interact with sexually but them selves. With no else to "do it" with and with no developed incest taboo, nature will do all the work for him.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.